Comments on: Pelosi, Boehner Wrestle Over Shift in Gay Marriage Supporthttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/pelosi-boehner-wrestle-over-shift-in-gay-marriage-support/
The latest Politics news and blog posts from ABC News contributors and bloggers including Jake Tapper, George Stephanopoulos and more.Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:31:01 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1By: D'Jaihttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/pelosi-boehner-wrestle-over-shift-in-gay-marriage-support/#comment-31764879
D'JaiTue, 26 Mar 2013 13:31:12 +0000http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=840666#comment-31764879In my opinion, EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE….We need to be more tolerant, understanding, and respectful in the differences of others….Just because you do not agree with someone we need to respectfully agree to disagree without being disagreeable….. People need to realize that all same-sex people are NOT sexual deviants and deserve to have a quality life and be able to do the same things as the rest of us if they choose….Our society needs to become more open-minded and embrace the differences in others. That is an important key to communication and not allowing fear of the unknown to sway one’s opinion of another individual…I think that it is refreshing for people, like Pres. Obama, Hillary Clinton, and so many others who are now coming forward, to educate themselves more and evolve on their thinking and feelings toward same-sex individuals/couples and their rights and more people need to do the same…. People who are born in this world do not choose to be attracted to members of their same gender. If more people would take the time and get educated about the chromosomes and how our bodies are created, I believe that it would change a lot of people’s views on what is and is not acceptable in our world. Everyone deserves to have someone in their lives to love and share their lives with and it is a sad day when something as simple as equality for two people who happen to be of the same sex must have a verdict passed in a court of law (and by heterosexuals)….We need to all come together and know that we are all a part of the human race and it should not matter whether or not the person is attracted to someone of their sex/gender. What should be important is that two people love one another, unconditionally, and want to be allowed the same opportunities as two people of the opposite sex….God Bless!!In my opinion, EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE….We need to be more tolerant, understanding, and respectful in the differences of others….Just because you do not agree with someone we need to respectfully agree to disagree without being disagreeable….. People need to realize that all same-sex people are NOT sexual deviants and deserve to have a quality life and be able to do the same things as the rest of us if they choose….Our society needs to become more open-minded and embrace the differences in others. That is an important key to communication and not allowing fear of the unknown to sway one’s opinion of another individual…I think that it is refreshing for people, like Pres. Obama, Hillary Clinton, and so many others who are now coming forward, to educate themselves more and evolve on their thinking and feelings toward same-sex individuals/couples and their rights and more people need to do the same…. People who are born in this world do not choose to be attracted to members of their same gender. If more people would take the time and get educated about the chromosomes and how our bodies are created, I believe that it would change a lot of people’s views on what is and is not acceptable in our world. Everyone deserves to have someone in their lives to love and share their lives with and it is a sad day when something as simple as equality for two people who happen to be of the same sex must have a verdict passed in a court of law (and by heterosexuals)….We need to all come together and know that we are all a part of the human race and it should not matter whether or not the person is attracted to someone of their sex/gender. What should be important is that two people love one another, unconditionally, and want to be allowed the same opportunities as two people of the opposite sex….God Bless!!
]]>By: ANOINTDHhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/pelosi-boehner-wrestle-over-shift-in-gay-marriage-support/#comment-31755428
ANOINTDHMon, 25 Mar 2013 16:15:08 +0000http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=840666#comment-31755428WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
1. Leviticus 18:22 “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:21-23 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
2. Leviticus 20:13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense. Leviticus 20:12-14 (in Context) Leviticus 20 (Whole Chapter)
3. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 6 (Whole Chapter)
4. Timothy 1:10 The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching 1 Timothy 1:9-11 (in Context) 1 Timothy 1 (Whole Chapter)WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
1. Leviticus 18:22 “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:21-23 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)
2. Leviticus 20:13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense. Leviticus 20:12-14 (in Context) Leviticus 20 (Whole Chapter)
3. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 6 (Whole Chapter)
4. Timothy 1:10 The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching 1 Timothy 1:9-11 (in Context) 1 Timothy 1 (Whole Chapter)
]]>By: B-K KNIGHTRIDERhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/pelosi-boehner-wrestle-over-shift-in-gay-marriage-support/#comment-31746816
B-K KNIGHTRIDERSun, 24 Mar 2013 21:50:48 +0000http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=840666#comment-31746816APPLE PIE: "You are a fundamentalist Secularist who is trying to IMPOSE your views ON ME! Again, just throwing the typical Leftist arguments back atcha! :)" - - - ROFL That is just stupid. EXACTLY how am I imposing my views on you? EXACTLY how does giving gays equal rights have ANY effect on you of ANY kind? EXACTLY how does giving gays equal rights under the law impose ANYTHING onto you or require you to change your beliefs or change how you live your life in any way? Please, I would love to see you provide a rational explantion for that. The FACT is nobody is imposing anything on you because you won't have to change one single thing about how you live your life or require you to change one single belief you have or require you to change how you practice your religious practices or change your religious beliefs in any way. Again, the FACT is nobody is imposing anything onto you. But people like you are in fact imposing your/their religious beliefs onto other people and oppressing them with immoral discrimination.
What does fundamentalist secularist even mean? ROFL You are only tossing off ad hominem attacks and labels (i.e. childish name calling) simply for the sake of doing that, and maybe just to fabricate a lame genetic fallacy. If you really want accurate philosophical labels to apply to me I am a pragmatic rational empiricist and religious (Christian specifically) humanist.APPLE PIE: “You are a fundamentalist Secularist who is trying to IMPOSE your views ON ME! Again, just throwing the typical Leftist arguments back atcha! :)” – - – ROFL That is just stupid. EXACTLY how am I imposing my views on you? EXACTLY how does giving gays equal rights have ANY effect on you of ANY kind? EXACTLY how does giving gays equal rights under the law impose ANYTHING onto you or require you to change your beliefs or change how you live your life in any way? Please, I would love to see you provide a rational explantion for that. The FACT is nobody is imposing anything on you because you won’t have to change one single thing about how you live your life or require you to change one single belief you have or require you to change how you practice your religious practices or change your religious beliefs in any way. Again, the FACT is nobody is imposing anything onto you. But people like you are in fact imposing your/their religious beliefs onto other people and oppressing them with immoral discrimination.

What does fundamentalist secularist even mean? ROFL You are only tossing off ad hominem attacks and labels (i.e. childish name calling) simply for the sake of doing that, and maybe just to fabricate a lame genetic fallacy. If you really want accurate philosophical labels to apply to me I am a pragmatic rational empiricist and religious (Christian specifically) humanist.

]]>By: B-K KNIGHTRIDERhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/pelosi-boehner-wrestle-over-shift-in-gay-marriage-support/#comment-31746695
B-K KNIGHTRIDERSun, 24 Mar 2013 21:32:28 +0000http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=840666#comment-31746695APPLE PIE: "We all base decisions on our beliefs! Each of us has core values and a worldview that informs the choices we make. You can deny it,..." - - - I didn't deny it. In fact I did exactly the opposite. The only difference between me and many other people is that I am able to make decisions by using independent rational thought instead of simply blindly following religious teachings.
APPLE PIE: "...you can call people names as much as you want,..." - - - I didn't. YOU were the one who resorted to name calling.
APPLE PIE: "...but the very fact that you are arguing tells me you have a worldview that informs you!!" - - - Yes, of course. And one of my core beliefs is the belief that discrimination is immoral - PERIOD. Another of my core beliefs is that allowing any group to force their religious beliefs onto everyone else through the force of law is unamerican and a violation of the spirit and intent of the 1st Amendment. I did not spend 27 years in the military swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution (about 12 times) for nothing. I will always do everything in my power to fight anyone and everyone who tries to turn the U.S. into a theocratic democracy, even other followers of my religion.APPLE PIE: “We all base decisions on our beliefs! Each of us has core values and a worldview that informs the choices we make. You can deny it,…” – - – I didn’t deny it. In fact I did exactly the opposite. The only difference between me and many other people is that I am able to make decisions by using independent rational thought instead of simply blindly following religious teachings.

APPLE PIE: “…you can call people names as much as you want,…” – - – I didn’t. YOU were the one who resorted to name calling.

APPLE PIE: “…but the very fact that you are arguing tells me you have a worldview that informs you!!” – - – Yes, of course. And one of my core beliefs is the belief that discrimination is immoral – PERIOD. Another of my core beliefs is that allowing any group to force their religious beliefs onto everyone else through the force of law is unamerican and a violation of the spirit and intent of the 1st Amendment. I did not spend 27 years in the military swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution (about 12 times) for nothing. I will always do everything in my power to fight anyone and everyone who tries to turn the U.S. into a theocratic democracy, even other followers of my religion.

]]>By: B-K KNIGHTRIDERhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/pelosi-boehner-wrestle-over-shift-in-gay-marriage-support/#comment-31746613
B-K KNIGHTRIDERSun, 24 Mar 2013 21:18:55 +0000http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=840666#comment-31746613APPLE PIE: "As usual, Leftists think basing on decision religious beliefs is not allowed in the U.S. We all base decisions on our beliefs!" - - - WRONG I never said individual PERSONS cannot base THEIR decisions about how THEY live THEIR personal life upon THEIR own religious beliefs. Everyone is perfectly free to do that and nothing is stopping them. Basing secular laws upon religious beliefs is entirely different. Nobody and no group has a right to force their religious beliefs onto other people. If one group following one religion does that enough then we have a de facto state religion that for all practical purposes establishes their religion as the defacto state religion. We do not live in a theocratic democracy and the majority of Americans have no desire to live in a theocratic democracy. The majority of Americans do NOT want to live in a theocracy in which the followers of one religion get to engage in a tyranny of the majority that imposes their religious beliefs onto everyone else through the force of law.APPLE PIE: “As usual, Leftists think basing on decision religious beliefs is not allowed in the U.S. We all base decisions on our beliefs!” – - – WRONG I never said individual PERSONS cannot base THEIR decisions about how THEY live THEIR personal life upon THEIR own religious beliefs. Everyone is perfectly free to do that and nothing is stopping them. Basing secular laws upon religious beliefs is entirely different. Nobody and no group has a right to force their religious beliefs onto other people. If one group following one religion does that enough then we have a de facto state religion that for all practical purposes establishes their religion as the defacto state religion. We do not live in a theocratic democracy and the majority of Americans have no desire to live in a theocratic democracy. The majority of Americans do NOT want to live in a theocracy in which the followers of one religion get to engage in a tyranny of the majority that imposes their religious beliefs onto everyone else through the force of law.
]]>By: B-K KnightRiderhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/pelosi-boehner-wrestle-over-shift-in-gay-marriage-support/#comment-31746498
B-K KnightRiderSun, 24 Mar 2013 20:35:59 +0000http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=840666#comment-31746498APPLE PIE: "Besides, you don’t have to worry about the animal part, you cannot deny the human part of the relationship THEIR due process under the law to marry an animal if they wish!" - - - Ah, yes we do and yes we can. Animals CANNOT enter into contracts of any kind therefore they cannot marry a person AND get any legal rights, benefits, and privileges for such a marriage. Now, of some persons want to have a ceremony of some kind and "marry" an animal, even their pet that they love, then more power to them. There is nothing stopping people from doing that. But the government has no reason to recognize such marriages. And any such persons do in fact already have due process for such marriages. They can sue the government to try and change the laws. THAT is the people's due process because people have civil rights. But animals don't.APPLE PIE: “Besides, you don’t have to worry about the animal part, you cannot deny the human part of the relationship THEIR due process under the law to marry an animal if they wish!” – - – Ah, yes we do and yes we can. Animals CANNOT enter into contracts of any kind therefore they cannot marry a person AND get any legal rights, benefits, and privileges for such a marriage. Now, of some persons want to have a ceremony of some kind and “marry” an animal, even their pet that they love, then more power to them. There is nothing stopping people from doing that. But the government has no reason to recognize such marriages. And any such persons do in fact already have due process for such marriages. They can sue the government to try and change the laws. THAT is the people’s due process because people have civil rights. But animals don’t.
]]>By: B-K KnightRiderhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/pelosi-boehner-wrestle-over-shift-in-gay-marriage-support/#comment-31746439
B-K KnightRiderSun, 24 Mar 2013 20:28:49 +0000http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=840666#comment-31746439APPLE PIE: "B-K ” NO, animals do not have the same inalienable rights or the same civil rights that people/human beings have.” Hey, don’t shoot the messenger, this is the thought pattern of the LEFT." - - - Well, so much for your stereotypes because obviously everyone on the "left" does not share that belief.APPLE PIE: “B-K ” NO, animals do not have the same inalienable rights or the same civil rights that people/human beings have.” Hey, don’t shoot the messenger, this is the thought pattern of the LEFT.” – - – Well, so much for your stereotypes because obviously everyone on the “left” does not share that belief.
]]>By: apple piehttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/pelosi-boehner-wrestle-over-shift-in-gay-marriage-support/#comment-31746048
apple pieSun, 24 Mar 2013 19:42:37 +0000http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=840666#comment-31746048B-K " NO, animals do not have the same inalienable rights or the same civil rights that people/human beings have." Hey, don't shoot the messenger, this is the thought pattern of the LEFT. Besides, you don't have to worry about the animal part, you cannot deny the human part of the relationship THEIR due process under the law to marry an animal if they wish! "Except of course in some version of a theocracy, which the United States." As usual, Leftists think basing on decision religious beliefs is not allowed in the U.S. We all base decisions on our beliefs! Each of us has core values and a worldview that informs the choices we make. You can deny it, you can call people names as much as you want, but the very fact that you are arguing tells me you have a worldview that informs you!! Otherwise, you wouldn't argue! You are a fundamentalist Secularist who is trying to IMPOSE your views ON ME! Again, just throwing the typical Leftist arguments back atcha! :) Good luck B-K. ByeB-K ” NO, animals do not have the same inalienable rights or the same civil rights that people/human beings have.” Hey, don’t shoot the messenger, this is the thought pattern of the LEFT. Besides, you don’t have to worry about the animal part, you cannot deny the human part of the relationship THEIR due process under the law to marry an animal if they wish! “Except of course in some version of a theocracy, which the United States.” As usual, Leftists think basing on decision religious beliefs is not allowed in the U.S. We all base decisions on our beliefs! Each of us has core values and a worldview that informs the choices we make. You can deny it, you can call people names as much as you want, but the very fact that you are arguing tells me you have a worldview that informs you!! Otherwise, you wouldn’t argue! You are a fundamentalist Secularist who is trying to IMPOSE your views ON ME! Again, just throwing the typical Leftist arguments back atcha! :) Good luck B-K. Bye
]]>By: B-K KnightRiderhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/pelosi-boehner-wrestle-over-shift-in-gay-marriage-support/#comment-31745678
B-K KnightRiderSun, 24 Mar 2013 19:10:08 +0000http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=840666#comment-31745678APPLE PIE: "B-K Animals don’t have rights??" - - - NO, animals do not have the same inalienable rights or the same civil rights that people/human beings have. They deserve humane treatment because that is the morrally correct thing to do, but not because they have rights. They don't have rights and I don't know of any rational reason for me to believe they do have rights, either inalienable or civil.
APPLE PIE: "“Deal with THIS issue on its own LEGAL merits.” Every legal issue has connections to other legal issues, you should know that. It’s called precedent." - - - I understand the concept of precedent quite well. My business law classes and poly sci class covered precedent quite well. Society and the courts then ajudicate each legal issue upon its own legal merits in its own time. At THIS time the ONLY relevant legal question is whether or not gays have the same legal rights and equal protection under the law as non-gays. The other lame issues you keep trying to muddy the waters with are lame and irrational red herrings that are totally irrelevant to THIS issue at THIS time.
APPLE PIE @ 2:06 - I NEVER made my argument on the basis of fairness. I make my legal argument purely on the basis of the law and the Consitution of the United States. For icing I also partly use morality, but I don't rely upon the issue of morality. Specifically, discrimination and oppression are immoral - period. I keep religious beliefs completely out of the issue because religious beliefs have no place in secular laws. Except of course in some version of a theocracy, which the United States. The U.S. is not and is not supposed to be any kind of theocracy. A democratic theocracy is nothing more than a tyranny of a majority in which one religion gets to engage in religious tyranny.APPLE PIE: “B-K Animals don’t have rights??” – - – NO, animals do not have the same inalienable rights or the same civil rights that people/human beings have. They deserve humane treatment because that is the morrally correct thing to do, but not because they have rights. They don’t have rights and I don’t know of any rational reason for me to believe they do have rights, either inalienable or civil.

APPLE PIE: ““Deal with THIS issue on its own LEGAL merits.” Every legal issue has connections to other legal issues, you should know that. It’s called precedent.” – - – I understand the concept of precedent quite well. My business law classes and poly sci class covered precedent quite well. Society and the courts then ajudicate each legal issue upon its own legal merits in its own time. At THIS time the ONLY relevant legal question is whether or not gays have the same legal rights and equal protection under the law as non-gays. The other lame issues you keep trying to muddy the waters with are lame and irrational red herrings that are totally irrelevant to THIS issue at THIS time.

APPLE PIE @ 2:06 – I NEVER made my argument on the basis of fairness. I make my legal argument purely on the basis of the law and the Consitution of the United States. For icing I also partly use morality, but I don’t rely upon the issue of morality. Specifically, discrimination and oppression are immoral – period. I keep religious beliefs completely out of the issue because religious beliefs have no place in secular laws. Except of course in some version of a theocracy, which the United States. The U.S. is not and is not supposed to be any kind of theocracy. A democratic theocracy is nothing more than a tyranny of a majority in which one religion gets to engage in religious tyranny.

]]>By: B-K KnightRiderhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/pelosi-boehner-wrestle-over-shift-in-gay-marriage-support/#comment-31745461
B-K KnightRiderSun, 24 Mar 2013 18:44:36 +0000http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=840666#comment-31745461APPLE PIE: "B-K So you choose to live in a “theocracy” of your own making, of your own biased opinions, denying others of being treated “fairly”. You still didn’t answer the question, it’s not that difficult. But, then again, I didn’t expect you would, lest you expose your own fear-mongering, hate-filled biases. You’ll never see it." - - - ROFLMAO More childish ad hominem attacks instead of intelligent cogent commentary or debate. Typical response from a conservative who is unable to generate rational arguments. Anyone who does not suffer from the same reading comprehension problem you obviously have can easily see how I did answer your question. Learn to read better and learn to think better and then you can understand that also. And clearly you don't understand the meaning of theocracy. Learn to use a dictionary.
What biased opinions? Please provide a RATIONAL explanation for the "biased opinions" I have given and rationally explain both how they are biased and how they are not something more than a hollow opinion instead of reasonable conclusions that have the support of rational reasons and reliable evidence.
And if you want to pervert the meaning of unfairness to include not allowing animals to have the same rights people have then I can live with that. I don't know of any rational reason to believe animals or things have the same inalieble rights that people have. I don't know of any rational reason to believe animals or things have or should have the right to marry a person or enter into any other kind of secular legal/social contract. And if you want to pervert the meaning of unfairness to then also apply to not allowing people to marry their animals or furniture or whatever then okay, I can live with that. I am a bad unfair person for believing animals and things don't have the same rights people have. But ALL people do indeed have the same rights. If you want to pervert the meaning of unfairness to include not allowing adults to harm children with pediphilic or incestuous relationships then fine, I can live with that. I am unfair because I think it is okay for the government to protect children and their potential offspring from the harm adults can cause them with a pedaphilic/incestuous marriage. Oh no, I am such a horrible and unfair person! How will I ever live with myself!?!?APPLE PIE: “B-K So you choose to live in a “theocracy” of your own making, of your own biased opinions, denying others of being treated “fairly”. You still didn’t answer the question, it’s not that difficult. But, then again, I didn’t expect you would, lest you expose your own fear-mongering, hate-filled biases. You’ll never see it.” – - – ROFLMAO More childish ad hominem attacks instead of intelligent cogent commentary or debate. Typical response from a conservative who is unable to generate rational arguments. Anyone who does not suffer from the same reading comprehension problem you obviously have can easily see how I did answer your question. Learn to read better and learn to think better and then you can understand that also. And clearly you don’t understand the meaning of theocracy. Learn to use a dictionary.

What biased opinions? Please provide a RATIONAL explanation for the “biased opinions” I have given and rationally explain both how they are biased and how they are not something more than a hollow opinion instead of reasonable conclusions that have the support of rational reasons and reliable evidence.

And if you want to pervert the meaning of unfairness to include not allowing animals to have the same rights people have then I can live with that. I don’t know of any rational reason to believe animals or things have the same inalieble rights that people have. I don’t know of any rational reason to believe animals or things have or should have the right to marry a person or enter into any other kind of secular legal/social contract. And if you want to pervert the meaning of unfairness to then also apply to not allowing people to marry their animals or furniture or whatever then okay, I can live with that. I am a bad unfair person for believing animals and things don’t have the same rights people have. But ALL people do indeed have the same rights. If you want to pervert the meaning of unfairness to include not allowing adults to harm children with pediphilic or incestuous relationships then fine, I can live with that. I am unfair because I think it is okay for the government to protect children and their potential offspring from the harm adults can cause them with a pedaphilic/incestuous marriage. Oh no, I am such a horrible and unfair person! How will I ever live with myself!?!?